Sanding our assholes with 150 grit.

From now on I'm calling myself a freedomitarian

>>"Can you imagine if hospitals could choose to refuse care,
>>even in emergency situations?  They could basically hold a gun
>>to your head if you don't pay what they demand."
>
>Good for them.  That is their right as a hospital.  And then
>maybe a better hospital will emerge that has a better system of
>admitting people. -- Bot

...because this is the shit that passes for libertarianism nowadays, and it's about as close to chattel slavery as you can get.
Permalink Colm 
March 13th, 2012 2:19pm
Good on ya, man.  Reclaim a decent point of view from those who are corrupting it.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 13th, 2012 2:23pm
Yeah at some point I was all yeah, I'm a liber... whoa wait, wtf?
Permalink JoC 
March 13th, 2012 2:24pm
Are you saying a hospital can't be allowed be refuse people?  Or a doctor can't refuse people.

If that person doesn't pay or pay, normally you don't provide the service.  What a crazy idea.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 13th, 2012 2:28pm
Or, how about, a hospital can't accept people because they believe that another hospital down the street would provide better service.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 13th, 2012 2:29pm
"Just let the dude die"?  Now THAT is the crazy idea.  But at least you're consistent in advancing it.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 13th, 2012 2:30pm
The only people with any interest in privatized healthcare are getting paid by it.

Of those people, only the wealthiest have any interest in it being privatized when it come to them actually needing to receive care.
Permalink JoC 
March 13th, 2012 2:31pm
"Just let the dude die"?  Now THAT is the crazy idea.  But at least you're consistent in advancing it.

In a free society, you shouldn't be forced to save everyone.  We should protect your individual freedoms.  But there shouldn't be a mandate, "you must save all the peoples"
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 13th, 2012 2:31pm
Bot is autistic.

Unfortunately he has the right to vote.
Permalink Attila 
March 13th, 2012 2:32pm
Some people would disagree so far as to say that is exactly what it means to be human. Anything less, and you're an ape.
Permalink JoC 
March 13th, 2012 2:33pm
"The only people with any interest in privatized healthcare are getting paid by it. Of those people, only the wealthiest have any interest in it being privatized when it come to them actually needing to receive care."

Based on what evidence?  Are all the people that get cosmetic surgery wealthy?  They want the medical service, they paid for it.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 13th, 2012 2:33pm
"Some people would disagree so far as to say that is exactly what it means to be human. Anything less, and you're an ape."

Where is Darwin's or other evolutionary biologists or neuscientists take on human beings and health care?

Me, I voted for Ron Paul and plan to do so again.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 13th, 2012 2:34pm
> They want the medical service

It is called treatment, you Enterprise Moron!
Permalink Attila 
March 13th, 2012 2:34pm
JoC,

If there weren't US Federal Government mandates on health care.

How could health care ever happen?  Will all doctors and medical manufactures just disappear.

...  Or maybe like other scientists, people will find an interest in the science, start companies, research and try to solve tough problems in medicine.  Possibly at a profit.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 13th, 2012 2:35pm
>Are you saying a hospital can't be allowed be refuse people?
>Or a doctor can't refuse people.

To me, libertarianism is all about maximizing everybody's freedom. That means there is a trade off somewhere. If we just maximized MY freedom, I'd have the freedom to rob and murder you. If we maximize everybody's freedom, that means neither of us has the freedom to rob or murder one another.

So yes, I'm saying that a hospital shouldn't be allowed to refuse people.

That's how it works. It shouldn't change.

>If that person doesn't pay or pay, normally you don't provide
>the service.  What a crazy idea.

What, so profits are more important than human life? How so?

This is basically a moral argument you're making here... so go ahead. Why is your idea not crazy?
Permalink Colm 
March 13th, 2012 2:36pm
That's the problem you don't get.

It's pretty much in nobody's interest but the very wealthy to want their healthcare practitioners to be capitalistically driven.
Permalink JoC 
March 13th, 2012 2:37pm
>Based on what evidence?  Are all the people that get cosmetic
>surgery wealthy?  They want the medical service, they paid for
>it.

Why do you keep bringing up cosmetic surgery? In almost every country (barring a few, usually under exceptional circumstances), cosmetic surgery isn't available under any government insurance program.

Nobody's talking about cosmetic surgery - they're talking about the kind of basic medical services which keep you alive when you're at your most vulnerable.
Permalink Colm 
March 13th, 2012 2:38pm
There is zero comparitive monetary interest in fixing people.

You can make far more money treating them for an ailment for the rest of their life.
Permalink JoC 
March 13th, 2012 2:39pm
>In a free society, you shouldn't be forced to save everyone.
>We should protect your individual freedoms.  But there
>shouldn't be a mandate, "you must save all the peoples"

This is what you are saying, no? Correct me if I'm wrong:

"In a free society, you should be able to be picked up by an ambulance, inches from death and then be presented with a contract, which, if signed, gives the hospital the right to 90% of your future earnings, thus making you effectively their slave?"

You can replace contract with a debt that creates the same slave-like conditions or whatever. But this is the essence of what you're saying. Slavery = ok, provided you sign a contract "freely".
Permalink Colm 
March 13th, 2012 2:41pm
I am not making any moral argument.  Imagine there was no health care service.  It never existed.  We had babies in the streets.  If you were shot, you bleed and maybe put to masking tape on your wounds.

There is no requirement or statutes in our laws to say that some people have to provide medical service.  The supreme law of the land, the Constitution is designed to establish a framework.  You are entitled to due process.  They establish that the politicians can't abuse power.

There is no and shouldn't be a requirement to use laser scalpels during soft tissue surgery.

It just so happens that the people in this country used science and technology to ensure better wealth.  Why is that even closely related to the laws of our land.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 13th, 2012 2:42pm
Freedom!  Freedom!  Freedomitarian!

Just because I want to be free, doesn't mean it's okay to kill people.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 13th, 2012 2:43pm
"In a free society, you should be able to be picked up by an ambulance, inches from death and then be presented with a contract, which, if signed, gives the hospital the right to 90% of your future earnings"

Yes.

Don't sign the contract or find a better hospital and/or ambulance.

That or get with others and sue the hospital and ambulance.  Maybe others won't go to that hospital again.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 13th, 2012 2:44pm
Bot, I hope you get a serious accident today.
Permalink Attila 
March 13th, 2012 2:46pm
I have to agree with Bot on this one.

In fact, it's the first coherent thing he said in years.

I fully agree with him.
The government has not the slightest business in healthcare.
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 13th, 2012 2:47pm
>I am not making any moral argument.

You are. You're saying this behavior is okay. If you can't admit that you're just a pussy.

>There is no requirement or statutes in our laws to say that some people have to provide medical service.

Yes there is. A&E are OBLIGED to take you whether or not you can pay. Ask Ron Paul... actually Ron Paul already said that he wants the hospitals to stop doing this for immigrants.

That is, Ron Paul wants illegal immigrants to lie on the ground, bleeding to death after getting hit by an American motorist.

That's your position as well I take it?
Permalink Colm 
March 13th, 2012 2:48pm
"Bot, I hope you get a serious accident today."

So that you can prove that the government should provide health care?

I hope to get in an accident and go to a cosmetic surgeon.  I know they don't receive or forced to accept government health insurance.  They may not be the best, but I will take my chances.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 13th, 2012 2:49pm
What part of "inches from death" says that the person has the capacity, or the time, to say "Nope, too expensive, let's go to the Hospital on the other side of the city".

Karma is a bitch, Bot, we have Muppet to demonstrate that.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 13th, 2012 2:49pm
>Yes.

Ok, so you are pro-slavery. Good to know.

>Don't sign the contract or find a better hospital and/or
>ambulance.

While you are inches from death? Ok, so you're arguing they should become a slave or die then.

I seriously hope you get your wish on this and it happens to you one day. It would be HILARIOUS :)
Permalink Colm 
March 13th, 2012 2:50pm
Besides, medical providers are immune from Anti-Trust law, so the hospital on the other side of the city probably has similar if not identical charges to the one you're already at.

Now wait, how is that "Free Market" again?
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 13th, 2012 2:51pm
"That is, Ron Paul wants illegal immigrants to lie on the ground, bleeding to death after getting hit by an American motorist.
That's your position as well I take it?"

Absolutely.  If they can pay for service or find a way to pay for service, that is on them.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 13th, 2012 2:51pm
Anyway, that's my dose of anti-ron paul trolling for the day. Back to work.
Permalink Colm 
March 13th, 2012 2:51pm
"While you are inches from death? Ok, so you're arguing they should become a slave or die then"

Where did the ambulance come from?  What technology evolved over time?

So now that we HAVE ambulances, we have to force the ambulance or hospital to offer their services.

What other future technology will come around that the government will force on people.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 13th, 2012 2:52pm
"Are you saying a hospital can't be allowed be refuse people?  Or a doctor can't refuse people."

Yup. It's called socialized medicine, and it's one of the few things that are better off run by the government than by the free market.
Permalink Antonio's Creditor 
March 13th, 2012 2:53pm
Quit the rhetorical garbage. Just say it:

"I am a follower of Ron Paul, and I am pro-slavery!"

C'mon. You're already 99.9% of the way there.
Permalink Colm 
March 13th, 2012 2:55pm
"I seriously hope you get your wish on this and it happens to you one day. It would be HILARIOUS :)"

This is the socialist philosophy.  You want everyone to suffer and hope the government can save everyone.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 13th, 2012 2:55pm
""I am a follower of Ron Paul, and I am pro-slavery!" "

I am a follower of Ron Paul.

I will glad to finish the rest of your comment if you tell me who the slave owners are?
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 13th, 2012 2:56pm
>I will glad to finish the rest of your comment if you tell me
>who the slave owners are?

Well, in this case, presumably the hospital with whom you signed a legally binding contract with. Or whomever the hospital sells you to.

Now, please... finish the comment. Say it loud and say it proud: "I am a Ron Paul supporter, and I am pro-slavery!"
Permalink Colm 
March 13th, 2012 2:59pm
Criminal company charges 100 bucks for a pill, and there is no way to avoid it, because criminal government enforces the monopoly of criminal company.
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 13th, 2012 3:02pm
You forgot to mention how it was the Jews' fault, dr h.
Permalink Colm 
March 13th, 2012 3:14pm
That is hardly relevant as an argument, is it not??
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 13th, 2012 3:16pm
Part of the reasoning behind the hospital's position, is if they admitted everyone, even those who couldn't pay, they'd be out hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient.

The problem isn't in the admitting -- it's in the cost.  As it is, the stakes are too high to allow a hospital to gamble on someone not being able to pay.
Permalink Send private email xampl9 
March 13th, 2012 3:24pm
There's a government backed fund to reimburse hospitals for those who don't cough up, I believe.

I had a friend who was taken in after passing out and they did all manner of x-rays, tests, etc. and found nothing wrong with him, but still billed him for $20,000 because no insura...uh, because well, fuck you, that's probably why.

He was chased for two years by debt collectors (which isn't fun as anybody here who faced them could attest to), then I believe he managed to prove that he didn't have that kind of money, so instead the taxpayer got stuck with $20k.

Holy hell am I glad to be British sometimes.
Permalink Colm 
March 13th, 2012 3:28pm
Having the NHS > Enjoying "American Healthcare" and its costs >> Bot's dystopian slaverlicious nightmare
Permalink Colm 
March 13th, 2012 3:29pm
So... roads and schools are socialism too then? Ok, you got me. I'm such a damned socialist!
Permalink JoC 
March 13th, 2012 3:39pm
One might argue that roads are needed for interstate commerce, needed to transfer goods from one state to the other.  Possibly to other countries.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 13th, 2012 3:48pm
I've always believed that one of the shortcomings of Capitalism is when it's applied to a business model in which there is a moral or ethical imperative inherent in that business model.

Healthcare certainly falls into that category - to treat or not to treat, that is the question.

If you Capitalize healthcare, you have a moral quandry wherein those who can't pay don't get treated. Conversely, if you Socialize healthcare, you undermine the type of government that you are presenting to the people if that government is democratic in nature.

While I don't proclaim to have an answer to this issue, I do not believe that any business model which contains a moral imperative attached to it should operate under a Capitalistic model.
Permalink Send private email Brice Richard 
March 13th, 2012 3:48pm
"so... roads and schools are socialism too then? Ok, you got me. I'm such a damned socialist!"

Yes, you are. Welcome to Canada!
Permalink Send private email Rick from Nexus S 
March 13th, 2012 3:49pm
Roads and schools are socialism too, and the state has no business building and financing them.

When people want roads and schools, they can get toghether and finance/build them.
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 13th, 2012 3:49pm
In fact, I see no need for a state at all.

Give people the right to bear arms, and no country can invade and no gangs will survive.
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 13th, 2012 3:50pm
> When people want roads and schools, they can get toghether and finance/build them.

Thereby founding a new kind of state.

God, how can all these people be so ignorant about the development of human society. They think society is something that was designed by some lawyers recently and that can be refactored at will, instead of something that grew mostly organically over millennia.
Permalink Attila 
March 13th, 2012 3:53pm
I've always believed that one of the shortcomings of Capitalism is when it's applied to a business model in which there is a moral or ethical imperative inherent in that business model.  Healthcare certainly falls into that category - to treat or not to treat, that is the question. "

"If you Capitalize healthcare, you have a moral quandry"

What Constitutional passage discusses health care as moral question?

How do you determine what is moral question?

Is lazik a moral question?
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 13th, 2012 3:57pm
Attila,

What are the laws on the books now as it relates to health care?  What should they be?  Have we done enough?  Should we do more to close the connection between health care and private business?

If we haven't closed the gap up to this point.  How have we survived for so long?
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 13th, 2012 3:58pm
It did not grow organically.

It emerged nearly instantaneously, as a result of conquest and genocide.

It used to be royals - now it's bureaucrats.
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 13th, 2012 3:59pm
You confuse government with society Dr. H.
Permalink Attila 
March 13th, 2012 4:07pm
Society never asked for government.

Government was imposed upon them by force.
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 13th, 2012 4:08pm
> Society never asked for government.

Oh yes it did, when there was devastating anarchy.
Permalink Attila 
March 13th, 2012 4:09pm
"roads are needed for interstate commerce"

Without people, what good are the roads?

It ain't the rich that can afford nice private healthcare driving those trucks.

When the rich do wreck, they are in a volvo or better so injuries tend to be less severe.

Money can't buy everything, nor should it.
Permalink JoC 
March 13th, 2012 4:12pm
Anarchy, by its very nature, is non-damaging because it is self-regulating, rather than to rely on a state monopoly of violence.

That is why countries where people lynch thieves have so little theft.
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 13th, 2012 4:13pm
And who's going to keep the filthy stinking poor off your roads? Privately funded police? Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. Privately funded militias...

That's capitacrazy.
Permalink JoC 
March 13th, 2012 4:13pm
Here is government for you:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2012/mar/13/greece-breadline-hungry-children-pe

The bankrupcy of a nation, all done by government.
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 13th, 2012 4:16pm
Naw, Greece was bankrupted by people willing to sell them easy credit -- who then jacked up the interest rates to the point where they simply couldn't pay.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 13th, 2012 4:17pm
> The bankrupcy of a nation, all done by government.

It is in such a situation where society can show how strong it is intrinsically.

Some societies survive these misadventures relatively quickly and restore the administration, others will just fall back to permanent misery.

Similarly you cannot have a successful democracy in a society that lacks the implicit behaviour: when everybody considers gross corruption a natural state of affairs, no law will change that.
Permalink Attila 
March 13th, 2012 4:24pm
Your (pl.) misunderstanding comes from not understanding the dynamics of politics and leadership.

Politicians become politicians because of their lust for power, not because they are do-gooders.

Hence, every form of government is intrinsically bad and the bigger the government, the worse it gets.

There is not such thing as democracy when the only people interested in making themselves electable are malicious, power-hungry, corrupt psychopaths.
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 13th, 2012 4:29pm
You may have difficulty believing this, because you are not psychopaths and therefore you believe in the inborn goodness of people. Not so with politicians. Not so with politicians.
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 13th, 2012 4:30pm
I have no problem understanding that politicians want power.

But there are big differences between nations in the way they limit the power of those politicians.

If you don't see those differences you have just lost the game already.

I am not an idealist, and have no illusions about the evilness of mankind.

But I do recognise the power of human society to keep a bit of balance in the power, if it really works hard at it.

History is full of examples of absolute evilness being checked. (Unfortunately it is also full of examples of absolute evilness being successful).
Permalink Attila 
March 13th, 2012 4:39pm
>In fact, I see no need for a state at all.
>
>Give people the right to bear arms, and no country can invade
>and no gangs will survive.

Have you ever seen what Mogadishu looks like?

No state, you can buy rocket launchers in the market and it's one of the biggest (anarcho-capitalist) hellholes on the planet.
Permalink Colm 
March 13th, 2012 4:48pm
>You may have difficulty believing this, because you are not
>psychopaths and therefore you believe in the inborn goodness of
>people. Not so with politicians. Not so with politicians.

It isn't now, nor has it ever been necessary for politicians to be innately good for government programs to work.
Permalink Colm 
March 13th, 2012 4:51pm
Colm, the reason Mogadishu is such a mess id because of the American government destabilizing the place with their Russian weapons.

I can't BELIEVE how naive you are!!

My point is that governments are evil.
In this case, the American government:

http://theintelhub.com/2012/03/12/cia-islamists-destroy-somalia/

The CIA began arming Islamic fundamentalists bent on destroying Aideed’s leftist Somali National Alliance.  As the fighting intensified the 2,000 US Marines, who had officially been deployed to protect UN peacekeeping troops, prepared to come ashore.  Organization for African Unity President Salim Salim called the event “a new kind of colonialism”.
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 13th, 2012 4:55pm
Oh yea,

How will this medical care run by the government actually work?

What services will the government provide?  To whom?  With what restrictions?  Will the government spend money on research?  How much?  What type?  What about medical equipment?  If government can't run medical equipment then the medical equipment providers will just charge million dollars for all things.  Who cares, they are getting a guaranteed government paycheck.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 13th, 2012 4:55pm
Norway is one of the richest countries, and it has virtually no medical service at all.

They have no SPECT scanners, for example.

The queue's for breast reconstruction are between 6 and 10 YEARS.

Thousands of cancer patients die each year due to misdiagnosis or delayed treatment.

A socialist hellhole, and the only way people get some medical care AT ALL is because you can go to a private clinic, pay a bundle and get help.
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 13th, 2012 4:58pm
I had several problems in my ten years in Norway that required medical attention.

I never went to state healthcare. Straight to the walk-in private clinic, if you want an X-ray or something.
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 13th, 2012 4:59pm
"Who cares, they are getting a guaranteed government paycheck."

The government is big enough to control price -- see Apple and Walmart.
Permalink Send private email Rick from Nexus S 
March 13th, 2012 5:08pm
> How will this medical care run by the government actually work?

See Canada.

> Will the government spend money on research? 

The government spends money on research now!

> If government can't run medical equipment then the medical equipment providers will just charge million dollars for all things.

Assuming there isn't a monopoly on equipment, the government will purchase from the cheapest provider.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 13th, 2012 5:13pm
All of you anti-Bots are basically pro-slavery.

Sure just force people to do shit they don't want too.

Doctor MUST cure the sick. Even as a private citizen with no say as to how much he should be compensated.

Programmers must programming the medical equipment with no say regarding compensation simply because he has the talent.

Security guard must work as police when they are needed... no say in compensatiin.

This is slavery.
Permalink Morons 
March 13th, 2012 7:33pm
> Sure just force people to do shit they don't want too.

What, that's crazy.  Nobody is forced to be a doctor, emt, programmer, etc.

> Doctor MUST cure the sick.

No, it's a doctors *job* to cure the sick.  Does anyone complain when it's a fireman's job to put out fires? 

There some serious flaws in logic here.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 13th, 2012 7:40pm
"No, it's a doctors *job* to cure the sick.  "

Is that at the hand of the hospital board or the Federal Government?
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 13th, 2012 7:47pm
@Wayne...

He doesn't WANT to do the job at the proposed compensation! He already quit.. you guys are saying he should be allowed to quit. That is slavery.
Permalink Morons 
March 13th, 2012 7:48pm
> He already quit.. you guys are saying he should be allowed to quit. That is slavery.

Who said that where now?
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 13th, 2012 7:51pm
> Is that at the hand of the hospital board or the Federal Government?

Does the employer really matter?
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 13th, 2012 7:51pm
In Canada, doctors are (mostly) self-employed.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 13th, 2012 7:52pm
>> Who said that where now?

You (all) are saying an organazation can't refuse service... that they can't quit or determine the terms of service.

Is that no what is being said here?
Permalink Morons 
March 13th, 2012 7:57pm
I'm just wondering how long you guys are going to go on arguing with a troll and a mental incompetent...
Permalink muppet 
March 13th, 2012 7:58pm
>> I'm just wondering how long you guys are going to go on arguing with a troll and a mental incompetent...

If it was only colm I would agree with you.. but alot of people here seem to be agreeing with him...
Permalink Morons 
March 13th, 2012 8:01pm
> You (all) are saying an organazation can't refuse service...

You seem to think that's unusual.  It's not even uncommon.  Trying to restate that as someone can't quit is trolling at the highest level.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 13th, 2012 9:10pm
Wait, so the government saying you have to do something or you get fired is slavery, but an employer saying you have to do something or you get fired is not. and a business saying that you have to pay them or you die is capitalism.
Permalink MS 
March 13th, 2012 9:29pm
>>You seem to think that's unusual.  It's not even uncommon. 

IT'S UNHEARD OF!! Only organizations that accept gov't money have such restrictions. But that because they are bound by a contract. If you are paid to do a service you must do it.

NO private organization is forced to perform any service for anyone they don't want to.
Permalink Morons 
March 13th, 2012 9:29pm
>All of you anti-Bots are basically pro-slavery.
>
>Sure just force people to do shit they don't want too.
>
>Doctor MUST cure the sick. Even as a private citizen with no
>say as to how much he should be compensated.



No, HOSPITALS must cure the sick. This is how it works right *now*, in the United States of America you godless commie fuck.

Doctors are free to stay or leave at any time (and they do), but the hospitals must continue curing the sick.

As long as there is a plentiful supply of Doctors willing to provide medical services for a fee, there is NO need to force THEM to do a thing.

So... I take it you're pro slavery along with Bot?
Permalink Colm 
March 13th, 2012 10:28pm
"No, HOSPITALS must cure the sick. This is how it works right *now*, in the United States of America you godless commie fuck. "

Is that one in the Constitution too?  So it is Federal law for Hospitals to fix people.  No wonder health care costs are so high.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 13th, 2012 10:40pm
>Is that one in the Constitution too?

Are you asking "is the law unconstitutional?". If so, the answer is: no, it *is* constitutional.

Are you asking "is the law REFERENCED in the constitution"? -- do you consider every law not in the constitution (i.e. every single law) to be invalid?

Quite a corner you've just argued yourself in to, Bot. I will look on with amusement at your clumsy replies :)
Permalink Colm 
March 13th, 2012 10:46pm
BTW, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness *was* in the declaration of independence. This hospital law thing is almost the embodiment of those words... those guys who wrote that document must have been morons, musn't they?

What they MEANT to write was "death, slavery and the pursuit of profit"

;-)
Permalink Colm 
March 13th, 2012 10:50pm
"It just so happens that the people in this country used science and technology to ensure better wealth.  Why is that even closely related to the laws of our land."

Have you ever worked in science? Have you ever applied a scientific grant? Remembering these and your older posts, I don't think so. It's absolutely the other way around - 99.9% of researchers are required to declare what contribution to society their research will make and they'd rather keep to their promise if they plan to ask for money ever again (at least that's how it works at top institutions). Guess why, guess who sponsors us. Research on lasers would never get so advanced if it didn't prove very useful for society, eg in medicine (increased precision, reduced bleeding, wounds heal faster, many treatments became possible thanks to lasers - so yes, it is required to use a laser instead of a scalpel).

There's a simple mathematical reason for general health care. Otherwise, there's ALWAYS someone who cannot afford it, vide the Pareto rule. Sooner or later you would become the unlucky bottom percentile (unless you are the wealthiest person in the world... hope you have a very broad training in medicine then). Some people intuitively get it, others don't.

"The government has not the slightest business in healthcare."

With this statement I can also agree. Short term.
Permalink s7h_black 
March 13th, 2012 11:47pm
Hypothetical...

You present to an ER with symptoms of ricin poisoning. Someone else is almost certainly to blame because there's a needlemark on your back where you could have never reached and it shows signs it was the injection site.

Someone else is liable for your condition, and should be then, for your care.

But if You can't pay, you just die because there is no way they are going to figure out who should be the one to pay in the time you've got left to live without treatment.

Jennifer Government had some interesting things with people needing to pay for criminal investigations, otherwise there was no investigation.

It wouldn't even "sort of" work.
Permalink JoC 
March 14th, 2012 1:21pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: March, 2012 Other topics: March, 2012 Recent topics Recent topics